Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 10:45:41 -0400 From: Nathan Vidican <nvidican@wmptl.com> To: "Andrew P." <infofarmer@gmail.com> Cc: questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: AMD64 vs i386 on a Dual Opteron Box Message-ID: <434D2195.9090606@wmptl.com> In-Reply-To: <cb5206420510120724i556e3bc1w88648932df72f325@mail.gmail.com> References: <434D1A10.1000701@wmptl.com> <cb5206420510120724i556e3bc1w88648932df72f325@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Thanks, I did not realize that there was an RC1 out for 6.0 already. Any ideas how far off 6.0-RELEASE may be? Realistically the O/S has become the least important issue on these servers; they're basically ldap/nss clients sharing data via samba from UFS file systems... a drop-in replacement to an NT fileserver/domain controller. I'll see what I can do to maybe get 6.0-RC1 running on a desktop in here somewhere today... even if just to demo it for myself. I'm running Novell's NLD (Novell Linux Desktop; based on Suse Desktop) now on my laptop (the machine which I write this email from now)... I'd MUCH rather be running FreeBSD, but the videocard has issues, and nVidia (bless their hearts) has released binary drivers for FreeBSD, but only for FreeBSD/i386... :( - I have emailed, and nagged to get them to compile/post for amd64, but to no avail thus far. I would love to have FreeBSD on this thing though... -- Nathan Vidican nvidican@wmptl.com Windsor Match Plate & Tool Ltd. http://www.wmptl.com/ Andrew P. wrote: > On 10/12/05, Nathan Vidican <nvidican@wmptl.com> wrote: > >>We've been encountering some difficulty between >>OpenLDAP/nss/pam/FreeBSD/samba over the past few months and really since >>inception. After countless recompiles of samba, working with samba and >>openldap code, we've traced it to being an issue somwhere between >>freebsd and openldap using threads, a clean compile of openldap without >>using threads runs fine, but still seem to have inconsistency with nss >>portions of it. >> >>The conscencus accross a few different threads on various mailing lists >>seems to be to try running FreeBSD/i386 instead, therefore assuming >>perhaps that there are some issues with threading/openldap/nss_ldap on >>the AMD64/64-bit platform. We're currently running 5.3-RELEASE, I'm >>going to attempt 5.4-RELEASE/amd64 first, if the issues still arises, >>the next step would be to try 5.4-RELEASE/i386, and if the problem still >>exists... then back to trying to debug the whole situation. >> >>So, given the above information, my question is this: >> >>Knowing FreeBSD i386 can be run on AMD64 hardware, is there any >>disadvantage other than the obvious 64-bit support? We're using dual AMD >>Opteron based machines with 2GB ECC registered memory, so memory >>capacity shouldn't be an issue running 32bit, but how about smp support? >> >> >>Also, if anyone might have another idea or option to go with towards >>fixing the openldap/freebsd issue, that'd be even better still - but to >>be honest I lack the skills, time, and hardware neccessary to accomplish >>this on my own. I'm hoping that something between 5.3-RELEASE and >>5.4-RELEASE can resolv the issue, or at least to isolate it to >>FreeBSD/OpenLDAP/Samba/nss_ldap/? as the cause. >> >>In short, i386 on AMD64 good, bad, why? >> >>-- >>Nathan Vidican >>nvidican@wmptl.com >>Windsor Match Plate & Tool Ltd. >>http://www.wmptl.com/ >>_______________________________________________ >>freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list >>http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions >>To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" >> > > > i386 is _exactly_ as good on amd64 as it is on i386. > Still amd64 is even better. If you can afford to lose > a couple of days more, try 6.0-RC1/amd64. It fixes > many things, and we'll try and help you debug your > setup from there. In his statements Scott Long > almost makes an impression that 6.0-RELEASE > will be more stable than 4.11 and 5.4. > > >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?434D2195.9090606>